Latest Articles
- All Relevant Employee ESI Must Be Disclosed
- Law Firm Sanctioned For Email Spoliation
- Carefully Choose Search Protocol In Litigation
- Court Orders Inspection Of Hard Drive After Delays In ESI Disclosures
- Archiving The Internet – One Snapshot At A Time
- Purposeful Email Deletion Results In Sanctions and Scolding
- Finding ESI Search Efforts Unclear, Court Requires More Discovery
- New Article Explores Metadata
- Suspicious Email Results In Dismissal Of Employee’s Claims
- New Opinion Illustrates How Quickly ESI Issues May Proceed in Court
Editor Bio
Gregg Mayer is a journalist and lawyer with a keen interest in the rapidly evolving world of e-Discovery. Gregg has published numerous articles, including writing for law journals and the American Bar Association. Gregg served as editor-in-chief of the Mississippi Law Journal. Before practicing law, Gregg worked as a newspaper reporter for six years.
DaimlerChrysler Faces Claims Of Spoliation Of ESI
Posted by Gregg Mayer on Tuesday, April 1st, 2008
A federal judge ruled in March that a plaintiff may bring spoliation claims against DaimlerChrysler Motors Company since the giant automobile manufacturer failed to implement a legal hold.
The case, Schmidt Pontiac-GMC Truck, Inc. v. DaimlerChrysler Motors Company, involves a breach of contract case. Essentially, Schmidt claims DaimlerChrysler breached a settlement agreement to let Schmidt open a Chrysler franchise.
Schmidt filed a lawsuit in 2004. At that time, DaimlerChrysler would have been under a duty to preserve all relevant electronically stored information (“ESI”).
During discovery of the litigation, Schmidt learned DaimlerChrysler had not preserved ESI. Schmidt filed a motion with the court to add a claim of spoliation against DaimlerChrysler. This is called a Motion To Amend. Schmidt alleged:
DaimlerChrysler (1) failed to implement a litigation hold to prevent the destruction of evidence after the complaint was filed…and (2) intentionally destroyed evidence, including replacing employee hard drives.
The court agreed with Schmidt, explaining that if DaimlerChrysler altered or replaced hard drives, then that would impact Schmidt’s ability to prove its case. Consequently, Schmidt is permitted to amend the initial complaint to add a claim for spoliation of evidence.
There has been, and probably will continue to be, discovery as to the destruction of evidence for the purposes of the adverse inference instruction. Any evidence developed in that regard might become known to the jury as a predicate for an adverse inference instruction.
Legal holds are crucial to avoid spoliation claims. CIOs must consult with legal counsel if ever any issues arise that might require preservation of ESI.
Posted in: Litigation Holds / Duty To Preserve | Spoliation
Discuss: Add a comment Share: digg | del.icio.us | Technorati
Discuss: Add a comment Share: digg | del.icio.us | Technorati
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.